User:Grimcleaver

Not certain, exactly what goes here ususally. I'll shop around when I have some time to see what others have done in this regard. Mostly it's up to demonstrate to people that I do indeed exist and am in fact a real breathing person.

If there's any personal slant I have on Wikipedia it is that I cherish it as a repository of human knowledge. I personally use it as a way to know and understand a vast array of different topics and often try in good faith to contribute whatever information I believe to be of genuine use.

I think Wikipedia is only helped by people adding exhaustive information on the most esoteric of topics, allowing the users to pursue their research to whatever depth they desire. I tire of debates about whether things are notable enough, or whether there's too much depth given to any topic. I cherish it all. I think it should be accurate and objective. Beyond that I feel that anything is fair game.

That said, I am entirely in support of people's right to disagree, to discuss, and to annotate entries with flags questioning the content. That's how the site improves. I think removing good faith content in the name of upholding Wikipedia policies is hurtful, damaging, and diminishes Wikipedia as a resource.

I think using the heavy hand of the moderator to ban users for making good faith edits is thuggary and is contemptable and vile. It promotes an atmosphere of fear in direct opposition to the desire for free expression of ideas and contribution of information that are Wikipedia's loftiest ideals. You can't do that if you are afraid that your long hours of work formulating a page are going to be swept aside by a jaded admin--or that if you make a change that you think is informative and helpful, that your welcome might be revoked and you may find yourself denied the ability to help or contribute with this worthy endeavor.

That's my politics I guess. More on me later.